Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-13-2014, 04:42 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,124,112 times
Reputation: 3248

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheese plate View Post
Well sure, but it has even harsher weather, fewer jobs, and a population of less than 80,000 and falling for decades. What's with people on C-D and Duluth?
It is simply way more scenic than the twin cities.

If the twin cities had Duluth's location, they could be on sound footing with Seattle. Minus Seattles superior tech sector, of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-13-2014, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
1,912 posts, read 2,057,474 times
Reputation: 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
It is simply way more scenic than the twin cities.
Aside from the post-industrial decay, Duluth is in a beautiful setting, yes.

However, for a Midwestern city, the Twin Cities are actually very scenic. Just in the tiny Minneapolis city limits alone, we have two waterfalls, seven lakes, the Mississippi River Gorge, AND we're the only city in the entire country that has a scenic byway (The Grand Rounds) right in an urban area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities (StP)
3,051 posts, read 2,575,003 times
Reputation: 2422
I am curious to hear just how many of you out of towners have actually been to duluth.... The city itself absolutely sucks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 05:39 PM
 
Location: Minnesota
198 posts, read 257,697 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams View Post
I am curious to hear just how many of you out of towners have actually been to duluth.... The city itself absolutely sucks.
Care to explain why? I've been there and it doesn't suck, I prefer the Twin Cities by a long shot, but it doesn't suck imo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2014, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
1,912 posts, read 2,057,474 times
Reputation: 4043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams View Post
I am curious to hear just how many of you out of towners have actually been to duluth.... The city itself absolutely sucks.
It's really only the west end of town (wide-scale abandonment, crumbling piers, etc.) that's truly disgusting to be in or look at. Downtown, the lakefront, Canal Park, and the east end of town are beautiful.

Superior, Wisconsin, on the other side of the harbor is the real dump. Sorry, Superior. You ain't superior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Limbo
6,514 posts, read 7,507,444 times
Reputation: 6319
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennifat View Post
It's really only the west end of town (wide-scale abandonment, crumbling piers, etc.) that's truly disgusting to be in or look at. Downtown, the lakefront, Canal Park, and the east end of town are beautiful.

Superior, Wisconsin, on the other side of the harbor is the real dump. Sorry, Superior. You ain't superior.
Yeah, I think we can all agree on Superior.

Let's bash that place instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,124,065 times
Reputation: 4401
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
It is simply way more scenic than the twin cities.

If the twin cities had Duluth's location, they could be on sound footing with Seattle. Minus Seattles superior tech sector, of course.
Minus the Twin Cities' superior Agriculture/Foods, Finance, Med Tech, Retail, and Logistics sectors, of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis (St. Louis Park)
5,993 posts, read 10,124,065 times
Reputation: 4401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironcouger View Post
It depends the metro areas are similar size . The culture and embracing green ways is big in both cities. If you like a downtown based mostly on work areas and neighborhood shopping for a mid size downtown population then yea go Minneapolis. If you like a city with twice the size downtown based on tourism, destination shopping, work areas, and one of the largest downtown populations in USA. Go Seattle.
There's that smugness again. It's the "my [you know what] is bigger than yours" argument, so therefore I'm better than you? How does that work necessarily? Nothing against Seattle at all -- and big "props" for having such a nice downtown and no MOA to destroy your downtown -- but since when is a city's greatness dependent solely on its downtown? Both CITIES (Seattle and Minneapolis/St. Paul) have a LOT more to offer than just downtown, last I checked. AND, for as great as Seattle's downtown is, Minneapolis isn't too bad either. Both are headed for big changes, perhaps moreso than much of the nation....IDK.

One big difference between the two: Minneapolis/St. Paul suffered quite a bit of blight and decay since WWII, unlike Seattle. It pales in comparison to other Midwest cities but they lost over 35% of their core populations from 1950 to 1990, and now you're seeing the recovery and picking up the pieces. It's not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Louisville
5,245 posts, read 5,953,452 times
Reputation: 9500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
There's that smugness again. It's the "my [you know what] is bigger than yours" argument, so therefore I'm better than you? How does that work necessarily? Nothing against Seattle at all -- and big "props" for having such a nice downtown and no MOA to destroy your downtown -- but since when is a city's greatness dependent solely on its downtown? Both CITIES (Seattle and Minneapolis/St. Paul) have a LOT more to offer than just downtown, last I checked. AND, for as great as Seattle's downtown is, Minneapolis isn't too bad either. Both are headed for big changes, perhaps moreso than much of the nation....IDK.

One big difference between the two: Minneapolis/St. Paul suffered quite a bit of blight and decay since WWII, unlike Seattle. It pales in comparison to other Midwest cities but they lost over 35% of their core populations from 1950 to 1990, and now you're seeing the recovery and picking up the pieces. It's not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison.
Seattle wasn't exactly paradise itself for a couple decades. Don't sell MSP short. Also Ironcouger didn't offer anything up in the way of facts to show that Seattle's downtown was "so much bigger and more populated" than MSP. Last time I was in both cities they had the same high end shopping downtown. No that quote you had sounds like a typical C-Der with anecdotal hyperbole to support bias. I doubt they have true experience of MSP to have a real opinion. (Of course now that i've said that someone will magically become an expert, as is always the case when called out.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2014, 10:58 AM
 
1,581 posts, read 2,809,115 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus View Post
There's that smugness again. It's the "my [you know what] is bigger than yours" argument, so therefore I'm better than you? How does that work necessarily? Nothing against Seattle at all -- and big "props" for having such a nice downtown and no MOA to destroy your downtown -- but since when is a city's greatness dependent solely on its downtown? Both CITIES (Seattle and Minneapolis/St. Paul) have a LOT more to offer than just downtown, last I checked. AND, for as great as Seattle's downtown is, Minneapolis isn't too bad either. Both are headed for big changes, perhaps moreso than much of the nation....IDK.

One big difference between the two: Minneapolis/St. Paul suffered quite a bit of blight and decay since WWII, unlike Seattle. It pales in comparison to other Midwest cities but they lost over 35% of their core populations from 1950 to 1990, and now you're seeing the recovery and picking up the pieces. It's not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison.
Nobody said it was better some people like living in a urban downtown setting some people would rather live in a single family house in a city . But when you go on a site and a thread comparing cities people are probably going to compare them . If that upsets you I wouldn't read city vs city threads. And do you realize your the one that brought up bigger is better . It's not for all people that's why I was giving facts so people could decide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top